COST, EFFECTIVENESS,
AND DEPLOYMENT OF
FUEL ECONOMY
TECHNOLOGIES FOR
LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
Committee on the Assessment of Technologies for Improving
Fuel Economy of Light-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2
Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. DTNH22-11-H-00352 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 13: 987-0-309-37388-3
International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-37388-3
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015947372
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C.D. Mote Jr. is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C.D. Mote Jr. are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This page intentionally left blank.
COMMITTEE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING
FUEL ECONOMY OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES, PHASE 2
JARED COHON, Chair, NAE,1 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
KHALIL AMINE, Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois
CHRIS BAILLIE, AxleTech International, Troy, Michigan
JAY BARON, Center for Automotive Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan
R. STEPHEN BERRY, NAS,2 University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
L. CATHERINE BRINSON, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
MATT FRONK, Matt Fronk & Associates, LLC, Honeoye Falls, New York
DAVID GREENE, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee
ROLAND HWANG, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California
LINOS JACOVIDES, NAE, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
THERESE LANGER, American Council for Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.
REBECCA LINDLAND, King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
VIRGINIA McCONNELL, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
DAVID MERRION, Merrion Expert Consulting, LLC, Brighton, Michigan
CLEMENS SCHMITZ-JUSTEN, CSJ Schmitz-Justen & Company, Greenville, South Carolina
ANNA STEFANOPOULOU, University of Michigan Automotive Research Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
WALLACE WADE, NAE, Ford Motor Company (retired), Novi, Michigan
WILLIAM WALSH, Automotive Safety Consultant, McLean, Virginia
Staff
K. JOHN HOLMES, Study Director
DANA CAINES, Financial Manager
LINDA CASOLA, Senior Program Assistant
ELIZABETH EULLER, Program Assistant
STEVE GODWIN, Director, Studies and Special Programs, Transportation Research Board
LaNITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator
MICHELLE SCHWALBE, Program Officer
E. JONATHAN YANGER, Research Associate
ELIZABETH ZEITLER, Associate Program Officer
JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
_____________
1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering.
2 NAS, National Academy of Science.
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
ANDREW BROWN, JR., Chair, NAE,1 Delphi Corporation, Troy, Michigan
DAVID T. ALLEN, University of Texas, Austin
W. TERRY BOSTON, NAE, PJM Interconnection, LLC, Audubon, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM BRINKMAN, NAS,2 Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
EMILY CARTER, NAS, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
CHRISTINE EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station
NARAIN HINGORANI, NAE, Independent Consultant, San Mateo, California
DEBBIE NIEMEIER, University of California, Davis
MARGO OGE, Environmental Protection Agency (retired), McLean, Virginia
MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL, Independent Consultant, Piedmont, California
DAN REICHER, Stanford University, Stanford, California
BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE, DaimlerChrysler (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
DOROTHY ROBYN, Consultant, Washington, DC
GARY ROGERS, Roush Industries, Livonia, Michigan
ALISON SILVERSTEIN, Consultant, Pflugerville, Texas
MARK THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego
ADRIAN ZACCARIA, NAE, Bechtel Group, Inc. (retired), Frederick, Maryland
MARY LOU ZOBACK, NAS, Stanford University, Stanford, California
Staff
JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
DANA CAINES, Financial Manager
LINDA CASOLA, Senior Program Assistant
ALAN CRANE, Senior Scientist
ELIZABETH EULLER, Program Assistant
K. JOHN HOLMES, Associate Board Director
LaNITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator
MARTIN OFFUTT, Senior Program Officer
E. JONATHAN YANGER, Research Associate
ELIZABETH ZEITLER, Associate Program Officer
_____________
1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering.
2 NAS, National Academy of Sciences.
Preface
In 2012, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed significant new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)/greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty vehicles. These standards will require the new vehicle fleet to double in fuel economy by 2025. Importantly, the vehicle manufacturers and suppliers by and large supported these new regulations. However, the manufacturers understandably had reservations in light of the aggressive nature of the standards. In order to address such concerns and meet statutory regulations, the Agencies proposed a mid-term review of the fuel economy standards. This review is to be completed by April 2018 in order to finalize the 2022-2025 standards.
The Committee on Assessment of Technologies for Improving the Fuel Economy of Light-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2, was established upon the request of NHTSA to help inform the mid-term review. Our committee was asked to assess the CAFE standard program and the analysis leading to the setting of the standards, as well as to provide its opinion on costs and fuel consumption improvements of a variety of technologies likely to be implemented in the light-duty fleet between now and 2030. The committee took the implications of our work very seriously, given the large potential impacts of the CAFE/GHG rules on the environment, consumers and vehicle manufacturers.
The committee comprised a wide array of backgrounds and sought input from agency analysts, vehicle manufacturers, equipment suppliers, consultants, academicians and many other experts. In addition to regular committee meetings, committee members held workshops on several critical topics, visited agency laboratories for extended discussions with their experts, and conducted numerous information-gathering site visits to automobile manufacturers and suppliers. The committee put great effort into thorough preparation for these meetings, asked probing questions and requested follow-up information in order to understand the perspectives of the many stakeholders. In addition, the committee commissioned a vehicle simulation modeling study from the University of Michigan in order to better understand the impacts of technology interactions. I greatly appreciate the considerable time and effort contributed by the committee’s individual members throughout our information-gathering process, report writing and deliberations, and the committee extends its gratitude to the highly qualified experts who provided us with excellent presentations and rigorous discussions and graciously hosted us on our many excursions.
The committee operated under the auspices of the National Research Council Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES). I would like to recognize the BEES staff for organizing and planning meetings, and assisting with information gathering and report development. The efforts of K. John Holmes, Elizabeth Euller, LaNita Jones, Michelle Schwalbe, Jonathan Yanger, Elizabeth Zeitler, James Zucchetto, and Steve Godwin were invaluable to the committee’s ability to deliver its final report. I would also like to recognize David Cooke and Dharik Mallapragada for their early input. Thanks also to the many presenters, too numerous to name individually, who contributed to the committee’s data-gathering process. Their contributions were invaluable and are listed in Appendix C.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Alexis Bell, NAS, University of California, Berkeley,
Andrew Brown Jr., Delphi Corporation,
John German, International Council for Clean Transportation,
Kenneth Gillingham, Yale University,
Imtiaz Haque, Clemson University,
Roger Krieger, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Robert Lindeman, Northrop Grumman/Mission Systems (retired),
Shaun Mepham, Drive System Design, Inc.,
Margo Oge, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (retired),
Gary Rogers, Roush Industries, Inc.,
Robert Sawyer, University of California, Berkeley,
Alan Taub, University of Michigan,
Thomas Wenzel, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Ron Zarowitz, AutoPacific, and
Martin Zimmerman, University of Michigan.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Elisabeth M. Drake, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Elsa Garmire, Dartmouth College. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and institution.
Jared Cohon, Chair
Committee on Assessment of Technologies for Improving the Fuel Economy of Light-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2
Contents
Approach to Technology Cost and Fuel Consumption Reduction Estimates
Study Origin and Organization of Report
2 TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCING FUEL CONSUMPTION IN SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES
SI Engine Efficiency Fundamentals
Fuel Consumption Reduction Technologies—Identified in Final CAFE Rule Analysis
Fuel Consumption Reduction Technologies—Not Included in Final CAFE Rule Analysis
Fuel Consumption Reduction Technologies—Not Considered in Final CAFE Rule Analysis
Control Systems, Models, and Simulation Techniques
Future Emission Standards for Criteria Pollutant Emissions
3 TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCING FUEL CONSUMPTION IN COMPRESSION-IGNITION DIESEL ENGINES
Compression Ignition Engine Efficiency Fundamentals
Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness
Combustion Ignition Engine Criteria Emission Reduction
Diesel Engine and Diesel Vehicle Cost Data
Conversion to Advanced Diesel—From NRC Phase 1 Report
Fuel Efficiency Fundamentals of Electrified Powertrains
Types of Electrified Powertrains
Transmission Fundamentals for Achieving Fuel Consumption Reductions
Fuel Consumption Reduction Technologies Considered in the Final CAFE Rule Analysis
Fuel Consumption Reduction Technologies Not Included in the Final CAFE Rule Analysis
Mass Reduction Opportunities from Vehicle Body and Interiors
Automated and Connected Vehicles
7 COST AND MANUFACTURING CONSIDERATIONS FOR MEETING FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS
Estimating the Costs of Meeting the Fuel Economy Standards
Manufacturing Issues—Timing Considerations for New Technologies
8 ESTIMATES OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION EFFECTIVENESS
Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness and Cost of Technologies
Full System Simulation Modeling of Fuel Consumption Reductions
Implementation Status of Fuel Consumption Reduction Technologies
9 CONSUMER IMPACTS AND ACCEPTANCE ISSUES
Trends in Vehicle Characteristics
Consumer Valuation of Fuel Economy: The Energy Paradox?
Costs and Benefits of the New Rules to Individual Consumers
10 OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF CAFE PROGRAM METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
Choice of Vehicle Attributes in the Design of Current Regulations
Assessing Adequacy of the Certification Test Cycles
The Treatment of “Alternative” Technologies in the CAFE/GHG Program
Approach and Methodology Used to Set Standards and Evaluate Costs and Benefits
C Presentations and Committee Meetings
D Ideal Thermodynamic Cycles for Otto, Diesel, and Atkinson Engines
E SI Engine Definitions and Efficiency Fundamentals
F Examples of Friction Reduction Opportunities for Main Engine Components
G Friction Reduction in Downsized Engines
H Variable Valve Timing Systems
K DOE Research Projects on Turbocharged and Downsized Engines
L Relationship between Power and Performance
N Effect of Compression Ratio of Brake Thermal Efficiency
O Variable Compression Ratio Engines
P Fuel Consumption Impact of Tier 3 Emission Standards
Q Examples of EPA’s Standards for Gasoline
T Derivation of Turbocharged, Downsized Engine Direct Manufacturing Costs
U SI Engine Pathway—NHTSA Estimates—Direct Manufacturing Costs and Total Costs
X Full System Simulation Modeling of Fuel Consumption Reductions
This page intentionally left blank.
Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
5.1 FEV Cost Teardown Study Issues: Six-Speed versus Five-Speed Automatic Transmission
5.2 Teardown Cost Study Issues: Eight-Speed Automatic Transmission and Dual-Clutch Transmission
6.1 Committee Summary of Two Studies on Reducing Vehicle Mass
FIGURES
S.1 Certification fuel economy values of 2013 and 2014 MY cars plotted on NHTSA CAFE target curves
2.1 Energy balance for SI gasoline engine for an operating condition representative of the FTP cycle
2.2 Low-friction technologies in a Nissan 1.2L three-cylinder gasoline engine
2.3 Effect of turbocharging and downsizing on BSFC versus torque
2.4 Fuel consumption reduction of MAHLE’s 30 bar BMEP, turbocharged and downsized engine
2.5 EPA-proposed time constants and resulting effect on torque rise time for turbocharging
2.7 Preignition and detonation limits for a turbocharged, downsized engine
2.9 Changes in horsepower, 0 to 60 time, weight, and fuel economy, 1980 to 2009
2.10 Performance as indicated by 0 to 60 mph acceleration time versus power-to-weight ratio
2.11 Advanced combustion concept spanning the range from gasoline SI to diesel CI engines
2.13 Schematic of SwRI D-EGR engine system
2.14 Variable compression ratio concepts
2.15 Scalzo variable displacement engine (VDE)
2.16 ESI variable displacement engine in a barrel or axial configuration
2.17 Tier 3 emission technologies for large, light-duty truck compliance
3.5 Relative deNOx, Inc. efficiency for vanadia and zeolite SCR catalysts for NO as the NOx species
4.1 P2 hybrid architecture showing the motor/generator coupled to the engine through a clutch
4.3 Series hybrid architecture, as used in PHEV applications
4.5 Honda two-motor series showing modes of operation at various vehicle speeds and driving forces
4.6 Battery electric vehicle architecture
4.7 Fuel cell hybrid vehicle architecture
4.9 Specific capacities of graphite, LixAl, LixSn, Li and LixSi anodes (mAh/g)
4.10 Volume expansion of different Li-metal alloys, including Li4Si
4.11 The battery management system protects each cell from a variety of detrimental conditions
4.12 Scheme of a Li-S cell and its electrochemical reactions
4.13 Diagram of a non-aqueous Li-air battery
4.14 Cell design comparison between a conventional Li-ion battery and all-solid-state battery
4.16 Schematic of a hydrogen fuel cell
4.17 Fuel cell system efficiency at various vehicle power loads
4.18 Projected worldwide locations of hydrogen stations
5.2 Energy distribution in a gasoline vehicle
5.3 Market share of different types of transmissions in 2014
5.4 Planetary gear set configuration
5.5 Typical six-speed planetary automatic transmission
5.6 Cross section of the ZF eight-speed automatic transmission – 8HP45
5.7 Schematic of a dual clutch transmission
5.8 CVT with details of the steel belt
5.13 Increase in ratio spread over the past 65 years
5.15 Fuel consumption reduction as a function of ratio range and number of speeds (ratios)
5.16 Transmission losses in a modern eight-speed automatic transmission
5.17 Typical clutch torque capacity as a function of hydraulic pressure
5.18 Alternative pump systems for oil supply
5.19 Off-axis double stroke vane pump
5.22 Wave springs for separating clutch plates
5.23 Improvements in clutch drag
5.24 Spin loss vs. temperature and oil level
5.26 Transmission power losses as a function of input speed
5.27 Transmission power losses as a function of input torque
5.28 Torque losses as a function of input torque for a dual clutch transmission
5.29 Comparison of wet and dry DCT efficiencies
6.1 Selected material content per light-duty vehicle, 1995 and 2008
6.2 Auto part targets for lightweight plastics and rubber
6.3 EDAG cost chart–2011 Honda Accord
7.1 Indirect costs as a percent of direct manufacturing costs by OEM, 2007
7.2 Total costs as a ratio to direct manufacturing costs (RPE), 1972-1997 and 2007
7.3 Estimates of scale economies in automobile manufacturing
7.4 Example vehicle incorporating a combination of steel and aluminum types
8.1 Learning factors for several different learning curves
8.2 Excerpt from NHTSA’s decision tree for a midsize car
8.5 Engine technology decision tree
8.6 Electrification/accessory, transmission, and hybrid technology decision tree
8.7 Vehicle technology decision tree
8.10 Schematic of engine–vehicle model
9.4 Average annual cost of driving a new car
9.6 Percent of passenger vehicles in different label fuel economy categories by year
9.7 Number of models in several categories of label fuel economy
9.9 Uptake of hybrid and electric drivetrains is highly regional
9.10 Household expenditures on gasoline + motor oil and vehicles by income quintile
10.1a Fuel economy target vs. vehicle footprint for cars in each model year from 2017 to 2025
10.1b Fuel economy target vs. vehicle footprint for trucks in each model year from 2017 to 2025
10.2a Changes in the distribution of car weights in MY 1975-2007
10.2b Changes in the distribution of light truck weights in MY 1975-2007
10.6 Simplified diagram illustrating the Agencies’ methodology for setting standards
H.1 Oil-pressure-actuated (OPA) variable valve timing system
O.1 Variable compression ratios used for gasoline and E85 for an FFV
R.1 Compliance schedule for the LCFS
X.1 Predicted fuel consumption (combined cycle) for various technologies
TABLES
S.1 NRC Committee’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Technologies
S.2 NRC Committee’s Estimated 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Technologies
1.1 Estimated Required Fleetwide Average Efficiencies under the National Program
2.3 Viscosity Grades of Engine Motor Oils
2.4 Engine Motor Oils Specified for 2013 MY Light-Duty Vehicles (LDVs)
2.6 Predominant Effects with VVT
2.10 Percent of LDVs with Gasoline Direct Injection
2.12 Boost Systems for Turbocharged, Downsized Engines
2.13 Three-Cylinder Gasoline Engines in Production or Under Consideration for U.S. Applications
2.14 Percent of Light-Duty Vehicles with Turbochargers
2.15 Values for Constants in the Empirical Equation of NHTSA
2.21 High-Cost Components in High-Cost Subsystems for Turbocharged and Downsized Engines
2.22 Example of Direct Manufacturing Cost (DMC) Estimates for Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) System
2.25 Product Development Cost Estimates for Intake Cam Phasing Technology Example
2.26 Calculation of Revised ICM for Intake Cam PhasingI4 Engine Technology Example for an I4 Engine
2.27 Calculation of Revised ICM for Intake Cam PhasingV6 Engine Technology Example
2.28 Complexity Levels for SI Engine Technologies
2.29 Other Available Cost Data for Turbocharged, Downsized Engines
2.32 Comparison of 2012 MY Gasoline and Natural Gas Honda Civic
2.34 Estimated Direct Manufacturing Cost for the Eaton EAVS Supercharger System
2.35 Comparisons of EPA Fuel Economy for Mazda Vehicles with Skyactiv Technology
2.36 D-EGR Vehicle Demonstration
2.38 California LEV III Emission Standards
2A.1 NRC Committee’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of SI Engine Technologies
2A.2a NRC Committee’s Estimated 2017 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of SI Engine Technologies
2A.2b NRC Committee’s Estimated 2020 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of SI Engine Technologies
2A.2c NRC Committee’s Estimated 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of SI Engine Technologies
2A.5 EPA Fuel Economy Data Examples of Downsizing and Turbocharging
3.6 Summary of Tier 2 Bin 5 Diesel and Conversion to Advanced Diesel Incremental Costs (dollars)
3.12 Diesel Engine Technologies Considered by the Agencies and the NRC Phase One Study
3.13 Prices of Gasoline and Diesel Equivalent Vehicles
3.14 Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle Models
3A.2a NRC Committee’s Estimated 2017 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Diesel Engine Technologies
3A.2b NRC Committee’s Estimated 2020 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Diesel Engine Technologies
3A.2c NRC Committee’s Estimated 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Diesel Engine Technologies
3A.3 The Fuel Economy of Current Vehicles, with Gasoline and Diesel Engines
4.3 Li-ion Battery Systems in Electric Vehicles
4.4 2013 DOE Report Key Assumptions of Cost Analyses for Fuel Cell System
4A.1 List of xEVs on Sale in the U.S. in 2014
4A.2 Further Examples of P2 Hybridization Effectiveness in Vehicles in MY 2014
5.2 Transmission Losses Estimated for a 2010 Baseline Automatic Transmission
5.3 Learning Factors for Most Transmission Technologies
5.6 Derivation of Direct Manufacturing Costs for Automatic Transmission (2007 dollars)
5.16 Derivation of Eight-Speed DCT Costs from Six-Speed DCT Direct Manufacturing Costs
5A.1 NRC Committee’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Transmission Technologies
5A.2a NRC Committee’s 2017 MY Estimated Direct Manufacturing Costs of Transmission Technologies
5A.2b NRC Committee’s 2020 MY Estimated Direct Manufacturing Costs of Transmission Technologies
5A.2c NRC Committee’s 2025 MY Estimated Direct Manufacturing Costs of Transmission Technologies
6.1 Agency-Estimated Costs for Aerodynamic Drag Improvement-Levels 1 and 2 (2010 dollars)
6.3 Distribution of Automotive Aluminum Utilization by Type
6.5 NHTSA-Estimated Maximum Mass Reduction for a Safety-Neutral Environment
6.6 Light-Duty Vehicles Material Technical Requirements and Gaps
6.7 Summary of Results from Electricore/EDAG/GWU Study Sponsored by NHTSA
6.8 Analysis of Mass Reduction Studies and Results
6.9 Comparison of Materials Used to Reduce Vehicle Mass
6.10 Learning Factors for Levels of Mass Reduction
6.12 Reduction in Fuel Consumption per Percent Mass Reduction (percent)
6.15 Summary of Estimated Costs for Low-Rolling-Resistance Tires from Various Studies
6.16 Costs of Electric/Electrohydraulic Power Steering (2010 dollars)
6.17 Efficiency-Improving AC Technologies and Credits
6.18 Derivation of Maximum CO2 Credits for Air Conditioning Efficiency Improvements
6.19 Costs for AC Efficiency Improvements
6.20 Compilation of Effectiveness of Improved Accessories from Various Studies and Organizations
6.21 Estimates of Technology Effectiveness and Costs for 2017, 2020, and 2025
6.22 Mass Reductions Foreseen by NHTSA/EPA and by the Committee (percent)
7.1 Breakdown of Indirect Costs for an OEM
7.2 Indirect Cost Multipliers Used in the 2025 Rule
7.3 Estimated Added Cost of Stranded Capital
7.4 Product Lifetimes and Development Cycles
8.1 Changes in Number of Cylinders as Engines Are Downsized
8.3 Synergy Factors for Application of Transmission Technologies to 27 bar BMEP (CEGR2) Engines
8.6 Alternative Pathways for a Midsize Car with an I4 Gasoline Engine
8.7 Air Conditioning Efficiency and Off-Cycle Credits
8.10 Detailed Fuel Economy Results from the U of M Full System Simulation Study
8A.1 NRC Committee’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Technologies
8A.2a NRC Committee’s Estimated 2017 Direct Manufacturing Costs of Technologies
8A.2b NRC Committee’s Estimated 2020 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Technologies
8A.2c NRC Committee’s Estimated 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Technologies
9.1 Studies on Consumer Valuation of Fuel Economy
9.2 Recent Surveys Show High Public Support for Fuel Economy Standards
9.3 Inferred Willingness of Consumers to Pay for Vehicle Attributes
9.5 NADA New Car and SUV/Truck Preference Surveys, August 2014
9.6 Private Cost of Ownership at Purchase Decision Born By the Individual Consumer
10.1 Comparison of Credit Programs under NHTSA and EPA
10.2 Comparison of EPA Test Cycles
R.1 Carbon Intensity of Fuels that Substitute for Gasoline
S.1 NHTSA’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Technologies
S.2a NHTSA’s Estimated 2017 Costs of Technologies (2010 dollars)
S.2b NHTSA’s Estimated 2020 Costs of Technologies (2010 dollars)
S.2c NHTSA’s Estimated 2025 Costs of Technologies (2010 dollars)
W.1 Technologies, Footprints, and Fuel Economy for Example Passenger Cars
W.2 Technologies, Footprints, and Fuel Economy for Example Trucks
W.3 Technologies, Footprints, and Fuel Economy for Example Hybrid Passenger Cars
X.2 Engine and Powertrain Configurations
X.3 Fraction of Cycle Time with Retarded Spark Timing to Avoid Knock